Eiichiro Kazumori
ABSTRACT
We consider a recent business and policy question of "how and why does a firm use online markets versus traditional offline markets ?" using a unique dataset of more than 3000 auctions held by Sotheby's online at eBay and offline at New York in June-July2002. We find robust empirical regularities in our dataset about the use of online markets. First, the average transaction price is more than 10 times higher in offline markets. This fact strongly suggests that the seller is not simply randomly assigning assets between online and offline markets. Second, the higher the mean and spread of pre-auction estimates of an asset, the more likely seller is to sell the asset in offline markets. Third, the transaction rate is higher in offline markets. Next, we build a simple model of offline and online markets to identify the business logic behind these empirical regularities. We model offline markets as an auction with endogeneous entry a la McAfee and McMillan (1987) where the traders pay transaction costs to hold transactions. We model online markets as standard ascending auctions. In online markets, the seller can save transaction costs and entry by bidders is easy, but the seller cannot reveal much information, leading to higher valuation risk and severe winner's curse. The seller sells the asset with high valuation risk in offline markets to alleviate winner's curse. In order to compensate for the transaction costs, the expected value of the asset sold in offline markets is higher. Since the seller's profit is equal to social surplus in offline markets due to entry costs, the seller is more eager to sell assets. Finally we provide a simple maximum likelihood estimation of transaction costs and information revelation effects based on discrete choice models.
- Amemiya, Takeshi (1985), Advanced Econometrics, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Ashenfelter, Orley (1989), How Auctions Work for Wine and Arts, Journal of Economic Perspectives 3(3), 23--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ashenfelter, Orley and Katheleen Grady (2002), Art Auctions: A Survey of Empirical Studies, CEPR Discussion Paper 3387.Google Scholar
- Bajari, Patrick and Ali Hortacsu (2002), The Winner's Curse, Reserve Prices and Endogeneous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions, forthcoming, Rand Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
- Bajari, Patrick and Ali Hortacsu (2002), Cyberspace Auctions and Pricing Issue: A Review of Empirical Findings, preprint, Chicago GSB.Google Scholar
- Barber, Brad M., and Terrance Odean (2000), Online Investors: Do the Slow Dies First ?, forthcoming, Review of Financial Studies.Google Scholar
- Barber, Brad M., and Terrance Odean (2001), The Internet and the Investor, Journal of Economics Perspectives.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baye, Michael, John Morgan, and Patrick Scholten (2001), Price Dispersion in the Small and Large: Evidence from an Internet Price Comparison Site, preprint, UCB Haas.Google Scholar
- Brown, Jerry and Austan Goolsbee (2000), Does the Internet Makes Markets More Competitive ? Evidence from the Life Insurance Industry, preprint, Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
- Bulow, Jeremy and Paul Klemperer (1996), Auction versus Negotiations, American Economic Review 86(1), 180--93.Google Scholar
- Bulow, Jeremy and John Roberts (1988), The Simple Economics of Optimal Auctions, Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
- Carlton, Dennis and Judith A. Chevalier (2001), Free Riding and Sales Strategies for the Internet, Journal of Industrial Economics.Google Scholar
- Choi, James, David Laibson, and Andres Metrick, How Does the Internet Affect Trading, Evidences from Investor Behavior in 401(k) Plans, forthcoming, Journal of Financial Economics.Google Scholar
- David, Herbert (1981), Order Statistics, Wiley.Google Scholar
- Ellison, Glenn, and Ellison, Sara F., Search, Obfuscation, and Price Elasticities on the Internet, preprint, MIT.Google Scholar
- Goolsbee, Austan (2000), Competition in the Computer Industry: Online versus Retail, preprint, Chicago GSB.Google Scholar
- Goolsbee, Austan and Judith Chevalier (2002), Measuring Prices and Price Competition Online: Amazon and Barnes and Noble, preprint, Chicago GSB.Google Scholar
- Levin, Dan and James Smith (1994), Equilibrium in Auctions with Entry, American Economic Review 585--599.Google Scholar
- McAfee, Preston and John McMillan (1987), Auctions with Entry, Economic Letters 23, 343--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Milgrom, Paul and Robert J. Weber (1982), A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding, Econometrica 50(5), 1089--1122.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sotheby's (1988), Contemporary Prints: New York, Saturday, November 5, 1988, Sotheby's.Google Scholar
- Tully, Judd (2000), Upmarket eBay and Cyber Sotheby's: Bidding on fine-art auction Web sites is taking an increasingly larger slice of the auction pie, http://www.cigaraficionado.comGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Selling online versus offline: theory and evidences from Sotheby's
Recommendations
Binary Vickrey auction - A robust and efficient multi-unit sealed-bid online auction protocol against buyer multi-identity bidding
The multi-unit Vickrey-Clark-Groves (VCG) mechanism has two major weaknesses: it has high computational complexity and monotonicity problems [Paul Milgrom. Putting Auction Theory to Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004] such that if ...
Selling to a No-Regret Buyer
EC '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and ComputationWe consider the problem of a single seller repeatedly selling a single item to a single buyer (specifically, the buyer has a value drawn fresh from known distribution D in every round). Prior work assumes that the buyer is fully rational and will ...
The effects of shilling on final bid prices in online auctions
An increasing number of reports of online auction fraud are of growing concern to auction operators and participants. In this research, we discuss reserve price shilling, where a bidder shills in order to avoid paying auction house fees, rather than to ...
Comments